MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992969359

The Short and Long-Run Implications of Budget Deficit on Economic Growth in Nigeria (1980-2011)

2014· article· en· W2992969359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. A. Awe, Kemi Funlayo Akeju

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeficit spendingCointegrationEconomicsGross domestic productShort runSample (material)Error correction modelMacroeconomicsInvestment (military)Regression analysisMonetary economicsEconometricsMathematicsStatisticsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research work investigated the short and long run implications of budget deficit on economic growth in Nigeria. The sample study comprises of time-series data covering period of 1980-2011. Regression analysis is conducted to ascertain and affirm the impact of Budget Deficit on the Economic growth in Nigeria. The result from the OLS regression analysis indicated that a negative relationship exist between budget deficit and economic growth. Johansen cointegration technique was used to investigate the long run effect of budget deficit. It was found that there is a significant long-run relationship between budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria.  The error correction model revealed that budget deficit shows a negative relationship with gross domestic product while gross capital formation (investment) shows a positive relationship with GDP. The study recommends that budget deficit should be financed appropriately to help promote economic growth in the nation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207